Core 2 @ 1333Mhz FSB tested

jmke · 11th March 2007, 00:12

While Intel Core 2 Duo E6050 family enjoy speed upgrade from 1066MHz to 1333MHz FSB, bandwidth is elevating 25% but no significant help to improve overall efficiency, therefore, Core 2 Duo E6850 frequency will be reduced to 7x (2.66GHz/4MB L2/13 33MSample/s FSB), as compared with the same time connections FSB 1066MHz FSB but only Core 2 Duo E6700. Test results found that most effective growth of less than 1%. Only memory tests have significantly higher reading and writing progress.

http://translate.google.com/translat...l=en&ie=UTF 8

Sidney · 11th March 2007, 02:12

Would 1600 FSB be next? With locked multi, this will mean less FSB overclocking; requiring newer and more expensive DDR2 or making room for DDR3 ..... either way Intel keeps the entire industry moving forward. As for future proof tech products, you are in the wrong hobby. With the critical mistake AMD made last year, there is no stopping for Intel this time around.

11th March 2007, 10:29

I think Intel only does it to have a fast counterstrike option against newer AMD CPUs by just upping the multi on their chips.

DDR3 is very attractive for Intel and for 24/7 operations like servers because of the lower power consumption

12th March 2007, 23:10

Hm, that's a good point lazyman. That wouldn't affect some hardware that uses memory multipliers though, like Gigabyte.

Intel is keeping 1066FSB parts around until Yorkfield/Penryn, namely with Kentsfield. Probably explains why they are giving a 50% price slash for the Quad Q6600 down to $266 in the third quarter.

11th March 2007, 00:12	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Core 2 @ 1333Mhz FSB tested While Intel Core 2 Duo E6050 family enjoy speed upgrade from 1066MHz to 1333MHz FSB, bandwidth is elevating 25% but no significant help to improve overall efficiency, therefore, Core 2 Duo E6850 frequency will be reduced to 7x (2.66GHz/4MB L2/13 33MSample/s FSB), as compared with the same time connections FSB 1066MHz FSB but only Core 2 Duo E6700. Test results found that most effective growth of less than 1%. Only memory tests have significantly higher reading and writing progress. http://translate.google.com/translat...l=en&ie=UTF 8 __________________

11th March 2007, 02:12	#2
Sidney Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 15,738	Would 1600 FSB be next? With locked multi, this will mean less FSB overclocking; requiring newer and more expensive DDR2 or making room for DDR3 ..... either way Intel keeps the entire industry moving forward. As for future proof tech products, you are in the wrong hobby. With the critical mistake AMD made last year, there is no stopping for Intel this time around. __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 1333MHz FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	0	14th May 2009 09:46
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 1333MHz FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	0	10th May 2009 13:52
Intel QX6850 Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core 1333MHZ FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	2	6th September 2007 05:28
Intel E6750 Core 2 Duo 1333MHZ FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	0	3rd September 2007 15:58
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66 GHz 1333MHz FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	0	20th August 2007 19:49
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 with 1333Mhz FSB Performance Test	jmke	WebNews	2	25th June 2007 20:27

11th March 2007, 10:29	#3
Rutar Posts: n/a	I think Intel only does it to have a fast counterstrike option against newer AMD CPUs by just upping the multi on their chips. DDR3 is very attractive for Intel and for 24/7 operations like servers because of the lower power consumption

12th March 2007, 23:10	#4
Kougar Posts: n/a	Hm, that's a good point lazyman. That wouldn't affect some hardware that uses memory multipliers though, like Gigabyte. Intel is keeping 1066FSB parts around until Yorkfield/Penryn, namely with Kentsfield. Probably explains why they are giving a 50% price slash for the Quad Q6600 down to $266 in the third quarter.